<P>Derek Nalls writes:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, symmetry is the first and most important criterion for a high-quality
chess variant. Without it, you have abstract junk every time.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>I so disagree with this. Symmetry, by which I assume you mean perfect symmetry, is not that important. In fact, assymetry is a desirable quality, because it multiplies the mathematically distinguishable opening moves by about two. As for symmetric games vs. assymetric games, I find that one of my least favorites, your own Corner Chess 10 x 10, is symmetric, while one of my favorites, Shogi, is assymetric. In fact, I enjoy many assymetric games and have never thought they might be better by being symmetric. I find no evidence nor imagine any reason why perfect symmetry would make a game better, much less be 'the first and most important criterion for a high-quality chess variant.'</P>

Yes, Chess is a tragicly flawed game, but the problem is the large number of stalemates at the highest levels of play. I don't see how that has anything to do with any lack of east-west symmetry. Furthermore, your statement that without north-south and east-west symmetry you have 'abstract junk every time' is pretty remarkable. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that by making this statement, you are calling the great majority of the games invented by everyone in this community 'junk.' That's pretty strong.